Answering the major objection against Calvinism

[skypair]

He didn't know? Cool. That's the only alternative isn't it. As long as you keep Him tamed. I have a follow up.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Rom 9:11-13.

Bless you, john. You have such a short memory and a weak theologyy to match it! Of course, God found out before either was born. That's what foreknow means, johnny. How do you think He told Rebecca to tie a red ribbon around Jacob's ankle? He foreknew everything about the boys. Where do you get off presuming that He hated Esau for no reason at all? Is that like "election" -- God elects for no reason at all?

EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

No one is saying that all this "planning" (predestination) didn't happen before creation, john. And no one is saying that God can't "steer" events in spite of men's choices. God even has various options regarding your "No, God." Whatever God's response is, He knows it already and it would be foolish of you not to know what God's options are at tht point.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hi Joyce,

How can anyone say that God did not know what anyone was going to do when God is and always "all knowing". Why would God have Jesus go through what he did if God had everything planned out for us eternally ?

That's just it, joyce. God created time at a point in time. Ergo, He didn't know about time in eternity before it. If He had, He would co-exist in time and not be it's creator and not be eternal, right?

Calvinists basically take to idea that God created a trainset wherein He was the Motive force behind everything that happens. Basically, such a construct ignores life cause life has existence apart from God that God does not control directly as with trainset "village people."

So how does God get His purposes done assuming beings that you don't control? You control the outcomes. You forsee their choices, you warn them (prophecy), and you choose when to "bring the hammer down."

He loves us and calls us unto salvation. We are not robots. We are given a choice. We except the salvation through grace that Eph. 2:8-9 tells us of or we don't. Maybe it is only I that understands the Holy Spirit came into people after salvation and still does today. No one has the Holy Spirit until after excepting The Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour.

The Holy Spirit called me unto salvation.......man, if I have ever felt anything in my life, I felt Him calling me that day.Once I yeilded to him, my life has never been the same.
Any way what a life changing experience it was. I know that I know what happened that day and my home is awaiting me some day.....
God bless you allraying:

That's beautiful, joyce! Yes! I like it so much, I'll copy it in my post for those who just go to the "last page!" :jesus: BTW, welcome to BB! :saint:

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

I don't understand this statement... The temptation itself is not "sin" it is only the inticment to sin, right? And God doesn't intice/cause/coherse men to sin. Wouldn't actively preventing someone from obedience be inticment to sin?

God does not actively prevent someone from obedience either.

Not listening to God's command is sin, right? If God is the one said to actively be causing someone to not hear and obey that would surely seem to fly in the face of what scripture clearly says God does not do...

You misunderstand me. I do not hold that God actively causes someone to not hear and obey in the sense you seem to mean.

Now, granted even from my view point God does actively harden men...however the way I explain this it is much less difficult to swallow, IMO. In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His great purpose being served.

I would argue that the hardening IS revelation of truth - that nothing is more surely to cause hardening/self-hardening than to present the power and truth of God in unequivocal terms. So, man self-hardens, but God also hardens by making the truth clear to unregenerate man to which man reacts by further self-hardening. What I am saying is that hardening is about man's reacting to truth, not man's reacting to deception or sin. God does not need to obscure the truth or His power to cause man's to reject it - He merely needs to give the truth or power in clear terms to the unregenerate and the unregenerate will create their own self-deceptions and hardening in reaction.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. I'm I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Here are are opposed because of your essentially different view of the nature of man. You say that hardening is a result of the truth being hid - I say hardening is a result of the truth being made evident to the unregenerate.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him?

See, thats the thing. God did. Consider John 12:37-40. Lazarus had been resurrected by Christ. No one tried to deny this fact, the leaders merely thought about killing him in reaction. Then in vs. 37 John mentions that Christ did all these powerful miracles in front of them yet they still refused to believe. So, the hardening of vs 40 could not be seen as a result of God hiding the truth or His power since vs 37 had already established that the truth and power of God had been made perfectly clear to them. No, the hardening of vs. 40 was in spite of the fact that God had made clear to everyone the truth about Christ.

Yes, Christ did hide some aspect of his ministry, but these are not the things which are associated with hardening. Hardening in John 12 is connected with the clear demonstration of God's power and truth. Same in Mark 6:52, and Heb 3:8.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Judicial hardening is when God seals one in that hardened condition so that they will not repent...Why would he do this? To accomplish a greater purpose through them. We see this done with Pharoah. God didn't have to do anything to make Pharaoh not want to let his slave labor go, however a few plagues could have convinced anyone. God didn't want him to be convinced until the passover was accomplished so God actively intervened to judicially blind Pharoah from the obvious truth of the plagues.

Lets be clear about this first - Scripture does not say how God accomplished the hardening. You contend that God obscured the truth to accomplish this, otherwise the display of His power would have been sufficient to cause Pharoah to be convinced. I contend that instead God accomplished the hardening by making the truth so perfectly clear that Pharoah *had* to either submit fully to the truth and power of God, or else resort to further self-deception. Since the former was totally unacceptable to Pharoah, the latter was the inevitable result.

Consider this: You say that God's demostration of power was sufficient to have convinced anyone. Yet why was Israel never convinced even though they saw these same plagues and even more miracles. As Hebrews says, they tested God and saw His power demonstrated for 40 years, yet they still hardened their hearts. Wouldn't this fact tend to argue against your assertion since the people of Israel were, in fact, not convinced of the truth?

 

[npetreley]

Consider this: You say that God's demostration of power was sufficient to have convinced anyone. Yet why was Israel never convinced even though they saw these same plagues and even more miracles. As Hebrews says, they tested God and saw His power demonstrated for 40 years, yet they still hardened their hearts. Wouldn't this fact tend to argue against your assertion since the people of Israel were, in fact, not convinced of the truth?

The Bible agrees with you.

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

The natural reading of this passage would tend to imply that not having an mind to understand, eyes that see or ears that hear is the natural state of man. Would you agree Skandalon? (BTW, love your forum name ) If not, why?

 

[dwmoeller1]

That's just it, joyce. God created time at a point in time. Ergo, He didn't know about time in eternity before it. If He had, He would co-exist in time and not be it's creator and not be eternal, right?

God could not have created time at a point in time - there was no time in existence for there to be a point in time at the point at which God created time. Ergo, the structure of your argument falls apart after your first statement. God exists before time and thus outside of time. All 'points in time' would be 'simultaneous' to Him. You can't speak of eternity in terms of time - its not simply infinite time (*can't* be infinite time, otherwise the point at which the world was created would never have 'arrived') but is 'outside' of time.

 

[johnp.]

skypair.

That's what foreknow means, johnny.

I've told you already I reject your definition of 'foreknow' and prefer the theological one that has knocked about for awhile. The very idea that God is not omnipotent was not your only way out you know? The only answer to why God creates men bound for Hell is very simple, He does not love them.

How do you think He told Rebecca to tie a red ribbon around Jacob's ankle?

Very gently I suppose why?

Where do you get off presuming that He hated Esau for no reason at all?

I would have thought Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Esau I hated. Rom 9:11,13 is far from presuming. I did not say God had no reason though. He hated Esau because He wanted to.

No one is saying that all this "planning" (predestination)...

I reject your definition of 'predestine' and prefer the theological one that has knocked about for awhile.

And no one is saying that God can't "steer" events in spite of men's choices.

God is Sovereign. The Sovereign Lord does not scurry about after men making do where He can but ...works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will... Eph 1:11.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dw.

You can't speak of eternity in terms of time...

Time and eternity are not opposed to each other. Christianity is becoming like cosmology. What happens if time did not exist? Nothing. Time never started but is part of God's being.

1CH 16:36 Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Then all the people said "Amen" and "Praise the LORD."

Everlasting to everlasting has a time element involved.

john.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Time and eternity are not opposed to each other. Christianity is becoming like cosmology. What happens if time did not exist? Nothing. Time never started but is part of God's being.

Saying that nothing happened if time did not exists presumes a 4 dimensional perspective is the only valid one. Time merely means that things happen linearaly to the perceiver in time. Set time aside and things can still happen...its just that linear perception becomes limited and pointless.

Everlasting to everlasting has a time element involved.

Does it, or do we just perceive it that way because we can't comprehend 'lasting' without a time element?

 

[joycebuckner]

Hell was never created for man, but for the fallen angels(demons) That is why Jesus came and suffered all that he suffered for us, right? To mgive all man a way out of damnation. John 3:16.........For God so loved the word...God hates no one and proved thatr when he sent Jesus to pay our cost for our origenal sins..We must be born again as the bible says.right?
I do not understand if we all read the same word of God and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us and help us to understand what God is saying to us through his word...why the constant nonunderstanding? The unsaved can have no understanding, but everyone here says that they are christians,I think).
God bless you all and I hope to meet you in Heaven some day...raying:

 

[joycebuckner]

I certain can misspell can't I???? sorry about that. I sent that with out reading it first.We can all have a laugh at the new dummy though:BangHead: :laugh:

 

[joycebuckner]

What enabled you to hear (feel) Him calling you that day? Why didn't you hear Him the day before? Was He not calling you on that day? Was your "line" busy? Were you unable to hear the day before?

I was closed to him.It was my fault not his. He always loved me and called. I had to decide to listen and except.some people get deaf to God.Can you hear him?

 

[joycebuckner]

That's just it, joyce. God created time at a point in time. Ergo, He didn't know about time in eternity before it. If He had, He would co-exist in time and not be it's creator and not be eternal, right?

Calvinists basically take to idea that God created a trainset wherein He was the Motive force behind everything that happens. Basically, such a construct ignores life cause life has existence apart from God that God does not control directly as with trainset "village people."

So how does God get His purposes done assuming beings that you don't control? You control the outcomes. You forsee their choices, you warn them (prophecy), and you choose when to "bring the hammer down."

That's beautiful, joyce! Yes! I like it so much, I'll copy it in my post for those who just go to the "last page!" :jesus: BTW, welcome to BB! :saint:

skypair

Thank you for sharing your view with me without trying to get into a war as in some cases.

 

[npetreley]

I was closed to him. It was my fault not his. He always loved me and called.

I agree so far.

I had to decide to listen

So you are the hinge and turning point of your own salvation. Enjoy your portion of the glory, then.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dw.

Saying that nothing happened if time did not exists presumes...

Better to presume than to fantasize. We live in a world with time and we understand that nothing happens without time passing. On the other hand it is just speculation based on a need to give cosmology a good name. They say that time, matter and space came into existence at the same time. What's 'outside of time? I am into science ficton. I have been a keen reader for fifty years. Cosmology is far out man.

...presumes a 4 dimensional perspective is the only valid one.

It's the only one going. My reality is real yours might not be. The 'everlasting' is defined by Strong as a long time. Amongst other things.

Time merely means that things happen linearaly to the perceiver in time.

But you speak as if you know it is different to the perceiver outside of time. That's all we know and the rest is speculation but this speculation affects scripture.

Set time aside and things can still happen...

You say that but you cannot prove it can you? I'd be dead interested.

...its just that linear perception becomes limited and pointless.

Limited? If time stopped the thought you were just having would stop because it takes time for thoughts to travel. It takes time for light. That's what we know. We don't know much else.

Does it, or do we just perceive it that way because we can't comprehend 'lasting' without a time element?

I've heard some sermons that were never ending. We see things as they are and that's the way it is. Anything else and I've read it in some sci-fi book or I listened to Richard Dawkins. Your balancing on paradox. Two lots of free will causes no one to have free will. Things happening without time is a contradiction.

john.

 

[Allan]

I agree so far.



So you are the hinge and turning point of your own salvation. Enjoy your portion of the glory, then.

Did you ever beleive, npetreley?

If so, then enjoy your portion of glory as well.

It doesn't matter if it came from you (faith) or if it came from God to you, YOU must believe and therefore by your own standards must glory in yourself as well.

Either God saved you regardless of if you ever believed in Him or not; or You believed on Him an were saved at that moment. You are the the one actively (not passively) believing, Ergo you took part in your own salvation. For unless YOU believe there is NO salvation.
Kinda sticky huh.

 

[webdog]

Ain't that the truth! Whether I use my own lawnmower, or use my neighbors, I am the one cutting the grass!

 

[dwmoeller1]

Better to presume than to fantasize. We live in a world with time and we understand that nothing happens without time passing. On the other hand it is just speculation based on a need to give cosmology a good name. They say that time, matter and space came into existence at the same time. What's 'outside of time? I am into science ficton. I have been a keen reader for fifty years. Cosmology is far out man.

Not fantasy, but hypothesis based on known fact. We already can demonstrate pretty conclusively that our time perception is a limited one. There are observed phenomena in quatum physics which simply can't be explained from our POV in the universe. Do we have the answers? No. But can we say pretty solidly that our time perception is merely our POV and does not even apply to all POVs in the universe? Absolutely. Einstein's theory of relativity placed the proper POV outside of measurable perception - we have proven that time sense can be affected simply by changing speeds. Quatum physics takes off from there and continues to confirm that our perception of time is not the absolute framework. This isn't fantasy but demonstratable fact.

In short, it can be conclusively demonstrated that what we observe about time is limited and does not apply to even natural phenomena. There is absolutely no reason to believe that time applies to the spiritual realm when it doesn't even apply in ways we understand to the natural realm on the subatomic level.

It's the only one going. My reality is real yours might not be. The 'everlasting' is defined by Strong as a long time. Amongst other things.

It may be the only one we can 'grasp', but it is definitely not the 'only one going'. Not even the natural realm conforms to our perception of time at all levels. It would be absurd to expect 'everlasting', which is on a spiritual level, to conform to the restraints of our experience of time.

But you speak as if you know it is different to the perceiver outside of time. That's all we know and the rest is speculation but this speculation affects scripture.

We can demonstrate that time is not perceived the same even in the natural realm. Why would you expect time to apply to the non-natural reality?

You say that but you cannot prove it can you? I'd be dead interested.

What level of proof are you going to accept? Simply put, we already know that our time perception is a function of our limitations. This is demonstrated mathematically and scientifically. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to expect that events 'happening' are limited to our perception of time.

Limited? If time stopped the thought you were just having would stop because it takes time for thoughts to travel. It takes time for light. That's what we know. We don't know much else.

Why would you limit our thought to the chemical processes of our brain? Can spirit think? How long does it take a spirit to think if it is not limited to physical/energy limitations? You seem to be proposing that the spirit realm is somehow limited by the natural.

We see things as they are and that's the way it is.

That is demonstratably false. Do some reading on quatum physics and relativity. What is observed is largely dependent on what POV the observer is observing from.

 

[johnp.]

Not fantasy, but hypothesis based on known fact.

Fiction dressed up as scholarly. Known fact?

...we have proven that time sense can be affected simply by changing speeds.

One canot be aware of a change in time.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that time applies to the spiritual realm when it doesn't even apply in ways we understand to the natural realm on the subatomic level.

There is absolutely no reason not to believe that time applies to the spiritual realm. Who says time doesn't apply to part of the natural world?

It may be the only one we can 'grasp'...

It's the only one we can grasp because it's the only one we know and everyone has experience of it.

...but it is definitely not the 'only one going'. Not even the natural realm conforms to our perception of time at all levels. It would be absurd to expect 'everlasting', which is on a spiritual level, to conform to the restraints of our experience of time.

Scripture in error is it? Everlasting means a long time. Jesus said I have everlasting life and He meant me to understand it as such otherwise He would have used another expression. He is the Expression of God. He's not lost for words.

PS 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Why is it absurd to believe in the bible? Words have meanings so we can know something. If you do not believe forever means a long time what? The word remains a long time.

We can demonstrate that time is not perceived the same even in the natural realm.

How? So that I can understand it?

Why would you expect time to apply to the non-natural reality?

We are not the natural world God is. We were created in Him. I don't believe evidence built on a lie. It's the lie, the "In the beginning." Since much of the science community oppose God then everything they say is suspect and one needs to make sure for oneself. If one cannot understand then "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." God's word is final until you can make sure. Much of the scientific community is based on a singular lie.

What level of proof are you going to accept? Simply put, we already know that our time perception is a function of our limitations.

We do? What's that mean? Do you think time is a limiting factor? I thought time was a liberating one, if that's what you mean, time has no end.

This is demonstrated mathematically and scientifically. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to expect that events 'happening' are limited to our perception of time.

Our perception of time is a thing God catered for in creating the stars after the Earth. He gave us a way to measure it's passing. God perceives time as God perceives it but if I may speculate, God rides the crest of the wave called 'now'. There is no past or future but a never ending now to Him. The past does not exist as a thing but as a memory and the future that He planned is yet to be. Love has to do with the 'now'. How does the perception of time change time but in love it is not perceived but passes as it passes inexorably.

Why would you limit our thought to the chemical processes of our brain?

I do not. I said a thought takes time to travel. We can now move things driven by thought. That's cool. That's science not mumbo jumbo.

Can spirit think?

Yes. Rev 6:9-10.

How long does it take a spirit to think if it is not limited to physical/energy limitations?

How do you know there are not limitations in the spirit realm? The saints in Rev 6:9-10 are having a chat about how long they have waited. They were told to wait a bit longer. Why should it be so different from us. The spirits are not omnipresent. They are contained in some way.

You seem to be proposing that the spirit realm is somehow limited by the natural.

And if I did I'm only doing the same as you as you're claiming it isn't limited?

We see things as they are and that's the way it is.

That is demonstratably false. Do some reading on quatum physics and relativity. What is observed is largely dependent on what POV the observer is observing from.

Depends on what you mean. But if I am faced with wall to wall higher mathematics then I have the choice of trusting in man or trusting in God and so does everyone else. I will trust in the beginning until I'm shown it is untrustworthy. If you put your faith in men then you should make sure and that means you must be up to speed. Yet all the cosmologists admit that their theory lacks proof of any sort but the mystery is resolvable.

john.